|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 389 Records
-
1999 (5) TMI 579
The properties of the appellant were directed to be forfeited under COFEPOSA. The appellant argued violation of natural justice as the order was passed without a personal hearing. The Tribunal found a violation, allowed the appeal, and remanded the matter for a hearing based on existing records. The appellant was directed not to deal with the forfeited property until the case is resolved.
-
1999 (5) TMI 578
Issues:
Challenge to order of detention under COFEPOSA Act, 1974; Forfeiture of property under SAFEMA; Jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal; Interpretation of proviso to section 2(2) of SAFEMA.
Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal concerned the challenge to the order of detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA), and the subsequent forfeiture of property under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA). The appellant, widow of the detained individual, contended that the order of detention stood automatically revoked due to the lack of confirmation within the specified period, as per the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 2 of SAFEMA. The primary argument was that the deceased detenu was not a person to whom the provisions of SAFEMA were applicable, as the order of detention was not confirmed within the required timeframe. The appellant's counsel relied on the Supreme Court decision in Nirmal Kumar Khandelwal v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 1155, emphasizing the importance of confirmation by the appropriate Government to continue detention beyond the initial period.
The Tribunal extensively discussed the necessity of confirmation of detention orders by the appropriate Government within the prescribed period, as highlighted in various Supreme Court judgments related to preventive detention laws. The Tribunal emphasized that the Advisory Board's opinion on the sufficiency of cause for detention is crucial, and failure to confirm the detention within the stipulated time renders it illegal. The Tribunal reiterated that the appropriate Government must act based on the Advisory Board's report, either revoking the detention order or confirming it for further detention. The Tribunal emphasized that the Advisory Board's composition includes high dignitaries, and the Government must release the detenu if the Board deems the detention unjustified.
Further, the Tribunal referred to the strict construction of statutes encroaching on individual rights, such as SAFEMA, and highlighted the need for a reference to the Advisory Board to determine the sufficiency of cause for detention. The Tribunal clarified that it did not have jurisdiction to question the validity of the detention order but focused on whether the order stood revoked within the meaning of the proviso to section 2(2) of SAFEMA. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the automatic revocation of the detention order, as per the Supreme Court precedent, rendered the appellant ineligible for the application of SAFEMA, leading to the setting aside of the Competent Authority's forfeiture order.
In summary, the Tribunal's decision revolved around the automatic revocation of the detention order due to non-confirmation within the specified period, emphasizing the importance of the Advisory Board's opinion and the Government's actions based on it. The Tribunal's interpretation of the proviso to section 2(2) of SAFEMA led to the setting aside of the forfeiture order, as the deceased detenu was not considered a person to whom the provisions of SAFEMA applied.
-
1999 (5) TMI 577
Issues:
1. Rejection of books of accounts and assessment of gross turnover.
2. Adequacy of opportunity to produce documents during the appellate stage.
3. Validity of the impugned orders.
Analysis:
1. The main issue revolves around the rejection of the firm's books of accounts and the subsequent assessment of the gross turnover by the Commercial Tax Officer (CTO). The CTO raised the turnover to Rs. 1,05,00,000 from the declared amount of Rs. 60,55,765.18 based on discrepancies in the original and revised returns, lack of supporting evidence, and unexplained entries in seized documents. The Tribunal found the rejection of books of accounts justified, citing the failure to explain discrepancies and lack of supporting documents. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of a valid "best judgment assessment" based on evidence and logical reasoning, setting aside the assessment order for reassessment.
2. The second issue concerns the firm's opportunity to present its case during the appellate stage. Despite 38 adjournments granted during the appeal hearing, the Tribunal deemed the prolonged delay unreasonable, emphasizing the need for a timely resolution. The Tribunal rejected the firm's plea related to the Advocate's illness, affirming the Board's decision as reasonable. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of a balanced approach in granting adjournments to ensure a fair and efficient appeal process.
3. The final issue questions the validity of the impugned orders, including the assessment, appellate, and revisional orders. The Tribunal found the assessment order lacking in logical reasoning and supporting data for the raised turnover, leading to its set aside for reassessment. However, the Tribunal upheld the Board's direction regarding credit notes, emphasizing the importance of considering supporting documents during reassessment. The Tribunal allowed the application, setting aside all impugned orders except for the credit notes direction, and remanded the matter for fresh assessment within three months, emphasizing the need for cooperation from the firm in providing necessary materials.
In conclusion, the judgment addresses the issues of book rejection, assessment validity, opportunity during the appellate stage, and the overall validity of impugned orders, emphasizing the importance of evidence-based assessments, timely resolution of appeals, and logical reasoning in tax assessments.
-
1999 (5) TMI 576
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai considered the inclusion of excise duty paid on raw materials in the assessable value of goods manufactured by a job worker. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the excise duty element should not be included in the value of the goods, based on the principles established in the Dai Ichi Karkaria case. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.
-
1999 (5) TMI 575
Issues:
1. Demand of duty under Rule 9(2) read with proviso to Section 11A(1)
2. Imposition of penalties under Rule 173Q(1), Rule 9(2), and Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944
3. Entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 175/86
Analysis:
1. The Additional Collector confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalties on the assessee for allegedly exceeding the exemption limit under Notification No. 175/86. The appellants contended that their activities did not amount to manufacturing as per the definition and cited legal precedents to support their argument. They claimed eligibility for full duty exemption based on the value of clearances in the preceding year. The Additional Collector's findings rejected the Department's contentions and held that the appellants were entitled to exemption for the relevant period.
2. The appellants argued that the authorities below misunderstood the requirements of Notification No. 175/86 and cited legal cases to support their position. The Chartered Accountant representing the appellants emphasized that the aggregate value of clearances did not exceed the threshold for exemption. On the other hand, the SDR submitted that the lower authorities had thoroughly addressed each point and correctly upheld the duty demand and penalties.
3. The Tribunal focused on determining whether the appellants qualified for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86. Analyzing the provisions of the notification, the Tribunal noted that the appellants were not registered during the relevant period, placing them under the proviso to paragraph 4 of the notification. It was established that the value of clearances in the preceding year did not exceed the specified limit, making the appellants eligible for exemption. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants fell within the category of the proviso to para 4 of the notification, entitling them to the benefit of exemption for the year in question. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, with the appellants deemed eligible for consequential relief as per the law.
This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, the legal interpretations applied, and the ultimate decision reached by the Tribunal regarding the entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 175/86.
-
1999 (5) TMI 574
Issues Involved:
The petitioner challenged an order for penalty imposed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax for failure to deposit T.D.S. within the prescribed time. The main issue was whether the Assistant Commissioner had the jurisdiction to impose the penalty under section 221 of the Income-tax Act.
Jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner to Impose Penalty:
The Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 3 crores under section 221 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant argued that the Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to impose this penalty, as regular Assessing Officers are the ones who charge interest under section 201 of the Act.
Notification Empowering Assistant Commissioner:
The Revenue's counsel contended that the Chief Commissioner empowered the Assistant Commissioner to pass penalty orders under section 221, citing notifications conferring such powers. The Chief Commissioner's notification dated May 23, 1991, granted the Assistant Commissioner jurisdiction over matters related to T.D.S. deductions and penalties.
Validity of Penalty Imposition:
The appellant argued that the Chief Commissioner could not empower the Assistant Commissioner to impose penalties under section 221, as section 271C designates the joint Commissioner for such penalties. However, the Explanation to section 221 clarifies that payment of tax does not absolve liability for penalties.
Difference Between Sections 221 and 271C:
A comparison of sections 221 and 271C revealed that they address different defaults related to T.D.S. deductions. Section 221 applies when the deducted tax is not deposited within the prescribed time, while section 271C pertains to failures in deducting or paying the tax.
Imposition of Penalty Despite Interest Payment:
The judgment clarified that even if interest is paid for default, penalties under section 221 can still be imposed. The appellant's argument that financial constraints led to the delay in depositing T.D.S. was dismissed, emphasizing that the T.D.S. amount must be deposited timely regardless of business circumstances.
Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Assistant Commissioner's imposition of the penalty under section 221. The judgment emphasized that the T.D.S. amount must be deposited within the prescribed time, irrespective of the financial situation of the assessee. The observations made were stated not to prejudice either party's interests before the single judge.
Outcome:
The appeal and applications were dismissed, and the request for a stay on the order's operation was rejected. All parties were instructed to act based on a signed copy of the order.
-
1999 (5) TMI 573
Issues:
1. Suspension of C.H.A. Licence of M/s. B.B. Bose & Sons under Regulation 21 of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984.
2. Validity of Partnership Deeds of 1978 and 1996.
3. Dispute resolution mechanism for contractual civil obligations between parties.
4. Dissolution of Partnership Firm due to the death of a partner.
5. Renewal of C.H.A. Licence post the dissolution of the Partnership Firm.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Suspension of C.H.A. Licence
The appeal was against the suspension of the C.H.A. Licence of M/s. B.B. Bose & Sons under Regulation 21 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. The dispute arose due to the death of one of the partners, Shri Ganesh Chandra Bose, and subsequent disagreements regarding the Partnership Deeds.
Issue 2: Validity of Partnership Deeds
The core of the dispute revolved around the validity of the Partnership Deeds of 1978 and 1996. The Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta, adjudicated that the amended deed of April 1996, giving preference to Shri Sanjoy Kumar Bose, was tampered and not genuine. The parties, Shri Bijoy Kumar Bose and Shri Sanjoy Kumar Bose, presented arguments regarding the authenticity of the Partnership Deeds and the renewal of the C.H.A. Licence.
Issue 3: Dispute Resolution Mechanism
The Tribunal highlighted that Customs Authorities were not the appropriate forum to determine the validity of documents or resolve disputes related to contractual obligations. It was emphasized that such disputes should be addressed through a Civil Suit in a Court of Law, not before the Department or Tribunal. The Tribunal stressed the need for legal recourse in contractual matters.
Issue 4: Dissolution of Partnership Firm
Considering the legal implications of the Partnership Act, the Tribunal noted that the death of a partner in a two-partner firm would automatically dissolve the Partnership Firm, regardless of any agreement within the Partnership Deed. The dissolution of M/s. B.B. Bose & Sons due to the death of Shri Ganesh Chandra Bose had significant implications on the renewal of the C.H.A. Licence.
Issue 5: Renewal of C.H.A. Licence
Given the dissolution of the Partnership Firm, the Tribunal concluded that the question of renewing the C.H.A. Licence of the said Firm did not arise. The Tribunal directed that the sons of Shri Ganesh Chandra Bose and Dinendra Kumar Bose could apply for fresh C.H.A. Licences with a new Partnership Deed. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision in accordance with the legal position regarding the dissolution of the Partnership Firm.
In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the suspension order and provided clarity on the dissolution of the Partnership Firm, emphasizing the need for legal procedures in resolving contractual disputes and the subsequent renewal of licenses.
-
1999 (5) TMI 572
Issues:
1. Duty liability and penalty imposed jointly on the contractor and the manufacturer.
2. Interpretation of the nature of the activity undertaken by the contractor.
3. Applicability of Circulars of the Board regarding central excise duty on goods.
Analysis:
1. The appellants, a contractor, and M/s. Gujarat Apar Polymers Ltd. (GAPL), the manufacturer, were jointly issued a show cause notice imposing duty liability and penalty on both parties. While GAPL settled its appeal under the KVS Scheme, the contractor appealed the decision. The contractor argued that their role was merely supervisory, providing guidance to GAPL, and the fabrication of tanks was done piece by piece at the site. The tanks were not considered immovable as they were not permanently attached to the earth. The Circular of the Board No. 17/89 was cited to support the position that no duty liability arose on the goods. The contractor contended that they did not manufacture excisable goods.
2. The Joint Director of Revenue (JDR) opposed the contractor's contentions, stating that the goods were both movable and marketable, and the Circulars of the Board were not applicable in this case. The JDR argued that the penalty imposed on the contractor was justified. However, the Tribunal observed that GAPL, as the main manufacturer, had settled the matter by paying the duty element. Considering that the contractor acted on the manufacturer's instructions and the duty liability was assumed by the manufacturer, the Tribunal held that no penal liability should be imposed on the contractor. Consequently, the penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed on the contractor was set aside, and the contractor's appeal was allowed.
3. In conclusion, the Tribunal found that since the main manufacturer had settled the duty liability, it was not appropriate to hold the contractor guilty of contravening Central Excise Law. The contractor's actions were deemed to be at the behest of the manufacturer, absolving them of penal liability. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty was based on the understanding that the contractor's role was limited to supervision and guidance, and the duty liability was primarily the responsibility of the manufacturer.
-
1999 (5) TMI 570
Issues:
1. Demand confirmation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with extended period invocation.
2. Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q(1) read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Applicability of penalty provisions retrospectively and machinery for adjudicating demands under Section 11D.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Demand confirmation under Section 11A with extended period:
The Commissioner confirmed a demand of Rs. 28,87,812/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, invoking an extended period of 5 years. Additionally, an amount of Rs. 13,595/- under the same section was confirmed. This was based on findings that the appellant failed to deposit excise duty collected on goods supplied to the Indian Railways, as revealed during a physical verification where discrepancies were found. The appellant raised bills covering both supplies and escalation charges, collecting excise duty on both. The appellant admitted to raising bills for escalation charges containing excise duty and receiving payments accordingly. The Commissioner upheld the demand after considering the submissions made.
Issue 2: Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q(1) read with Section 11AC:
The appellant contested the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 29,01,407/- under Rule 173Q(1) read with Section 11AC. The appellant argued that Section 11AC was not applicable retrospectively to their case, as it was introduced after the period in question. The Tribunal noted that the penalty amount was equal to the confirmed duty amount, indicating it was imposed under Section 11AC. However, the Tribunal found ambiguity in the order regarding the apportionment of the penalty amount. As the demand was for a period predating the introduction of Section 11AC, the Tribunal held that the penal provisions of Section 11AC could not be applied. The Tribunal also noted that the demand was raised under Section 11D, and without machinery provision under this section, enforcement of demands and penalties was legally unsustainable.
Issue 3: Applicability of penalty provisions retrospectively and machinery under Section 11D:
The Tribunal considered the arguments regarding the retrospective application of penalty provisions and the absence of machinery provision under Section 11D for adjudicating demands. It was observed that demands accruing before the introduction of Section 11AC could not be subject to its penal provisions. Citing a decision by the Hon'ble Madras High Court, the Tribunal emphasized that without machinery provision under Section 11D, demands and penalties could not be enforced legally. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding merit in the appellant's contentions and providing relief accordingly under the law.
-
1999 (5) TMI 569
Issues involved:
Whether the process of crushing stones amounts to manufacture for Central Excise duty liability.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Arguments by Appellant No. 1 (Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.):
- Appellant engaged in construction work, contends crushing stones is not manufacturing.
- Refers to previous Tribunal decisions, different High Court judgments.
- Emphasizes boulders and crushed stones are the same material.
- Highlights lack of evidence from the Department to prove manufacturing.
2. Arguments by Appellant No. 2 (Continental Construction Co. Ltd.):
- Adopts arguments of Appellant No. 1 regarding the non-manufacturing nature of crushing stones.
3. Counterarguments by Shri H.K. Jain for the Respondent:
- Tribunal previously held crushing limestone is manufacturing.
- Mentions consistent Tribunal view, citing relevant judgments.
- Raises doubt on duty demand clarity for the entire quantity of stones.
4. Response to Counterarguments by Appellants:
- Cites Supreme Court judgment on new commodity creation for duty liability.
- Argues no new product emerges from crushing stones.
5. Judgment:
- Tribunal acknowledges previous decision on Appellant No. 1's case.
- Considers consistent Tribunal view on crushing limestone as manufacturing.
- Differentiates Sales Tax Act judgments from Central Excise Act cases.
- Refers to Supreme Court tests for manufacturing determination.
- Concludes crushing boulders into smaller stones is manufacturing under CETA.
6. Regarding Duty Demand and Penalty:
- Appellant's plea on duty demand not substantiated with evidence.
- No penalty imposed due to interpretation issue; penalty set aside.
- All five appeals rejected except for penalty modification.
This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the arguments presented by both parties, the counterarguments raised, the Tribunal's reasoning based on legal precedents and tests for manufacturing determination, and the final decision regarding the liability of crushed stones to Central Excise duty.
-
1999 (5) TMI 568
Issues: Classification of Aluminium and Zinc castings under Tariff Headings 7616.90 and 7907.90
Analysis:
1. Factual Plea and Classification Decision: The appellants claimed the classification of Aluminium and Zinc castings under Tariff Headings 7616.90 and 7907.90, while the revenue argued for classification based on the machinery in which the parts made from the castings were used. The original adjudicating authority decided the classification based on the samples, stating that the castings had acquired the essential character of component parts and bore a brand name. This decision was made without rebutting the appellants' plea that they only removed unmachined or proof machined castings up to the stage of fettling.
2. Legal Precedents and Arguments: The appellant's advocate referred to the case law of Shivaji Works and Another v. Collector of Central Excise, Pee Cee Casting (P) Limited v. Collector Central Excise, and Dhanman Precicast Private Limited v. C.C.E., Aurangabad to support the classification under Tariff Heading 7616.90 for aluminium castings. The advocate argued that the factual plea of the appellants was not rebutted by the authorities and should be accepted based on previous judgments.
3. Opposing Contentions and Remand Request: The learned SDR argued that the lower authorities did not provide a finding on whether the castings were unmachined or proof machined, which prevented the application of the Shivaji Works judgment. He suggested remanding the case for a factual finding on the plea taken by the appellants.
4. Decision and Rationale: The Tribunal acknowledged the categorical factual plea made by the appellants and noted the absence of a specific rebuttal by the lower authorities. Considering the age of the matters and lack of justification for remand, the Tribunal accepted that the castings were either unmachined or proof machined. As a result, the judgments cited by the appellant's advocate were deemed applicable, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeals with consequential reliefs to the appellants.
-
1999 (5) TMI 564
Issues: Valuation of goods for excise duty based on different price lists
Analysis:
1. The appeal involved the valuation of "Twiga Insulation Resin Bonded Glass Wool Mat. Pipe Section" by M/s. U.P. Twiga Fiberglass Ltd. The company declared prices in part-I and part-II price list proforma for sales to different buyers.
2. The appellant argued that the Department was not justified in independently arriving at the assessable value for goods not similar to those in the part-II price list. They contended that valuation should have been done under Rule 6b(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules for such goods.
3. The Department, represented by the learned SDR, stated that there was no factory gate sale for the goods in question, and the prices in the part-I price list proforma had no basis. They adopted prices from the part-II price list for similar goods and defended their approach.
4. The Tribunal acknowledged the absence of factory gate sales for the goods, which were directly transported to the insulation site under contract. They agreed with the Department's valuation based on prices of similar goods from the part-II price list.
5. However, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument regarding goods not listed in either price list. They directed the re-determination of assessable values for such goods under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner.
6. The Tribunal granted the appellant an opportunity to present their case before the re-determination and emphasized the need for a speaking appealable order in compliance with the law.
7. In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed, and the matter was remanded for revaluation of goods not covered in the price lists, ensuring compliance with the Central Excise Valuation Rules.
-
1999 (5) TMI 562
Issues: Imposition of penalty on the appellant for involvement in purchasing/selling and transporting of smuggled goods.
In this case, the appellant was aggrieved by the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs by the Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow, based on the appellant's alleged involvement in purchasing/selling and transporting ball bearings and video cassettes of foreign origin recovered from a tractor trolley. The adjudicating authority held that the appellant was one of the three persons on the trolley at the time of interception and had fled the scene. The appellant denied involvement, arguing that neither of the detained individuals stated he was with them, and that key statements linking him to the offense were inadmissible hearsay. The appellant's counsel contended that there was no concrete evidence connecting the appellant to the smuggling activities, urging for the penalty to be set aside.
The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the statements linking the appellant to the offense were unreliable and inadmissible as evidence. The appellant's counsel highlighted that the statement indicating the goods were to be handed over to a person named Babu Khan did not conclusively establish the appellant as Babu Khan. Moreover, the absence of identification of the appellant as the person fleeing the scene or as the intended recipient of the goods further weakened the case against him. The counsel emphasized that the available evidence was insufficient to prove the appellant's involvement in the smuggling activities, advocating for the penalty to be revoked.
On the other hand, the learned DR reiterated the findings of the impugned order, asserting that the police report indicated the appellant's presence on the tractor trolley, justifying the imposed penalty. However, the appellate tribunal carefully analyzed the submissions and evidence presented. They noted that the statement indicating the goods' intended recipient, Babu Khan, was inadmissible under the Indian Evidence Act. Additionally, the tribunal highlighted the lack of identification linking the appellant to the offense, as well as the absence of crucial details in the Fard Report to establish the appellant's involvement. Ultimately, the tribunal found the evidence insufficient to hold the appellant accountable for the smuggling activities, leading to the setting aside of the penalty imposed and allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.
-
1999 (5) TMI 561
The appeal at Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved the valuation of goods sold to a buyer considered related. The order to add buyer's advertising cost to manufacturer's assessable value was deemed unjustified. The Tribunal found no basis to treat buyer and seller as related parties or to include advertising expenses in assessable value. The appeal was allowed, citing lack of legal basis for the addition of advertising cost to the goods' value.
-
1999 (5) TMI 560
Issues Involved:
1. Extent of credit available under the Duty Credit Passbook Scheme.
2. Determination of the applicable input norms for the exported products.
3. Interpretation of the "route" in the norms.
4. Application of the exemption notification and selection of norms.
5. Consideration of the manufacturing process and starting point of manufacture.
6. Application of the circular issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Extent of Credit Available Under the Duty Credit Passbook Scheme:
The appellant, a manufacturer of bulk drugs and formulations, exported consignments of various drugs under the Duty Credit Passbook Scheme, which was in force from 1-4-1995 to 31-3-1997. The scheme allowed exporters to receive credit of basic customs duty based on the deemed import content of the export product, as prescribed in the standard input/output norms. The dispute centered on the extent of credit available to the appellant for the exported products.
2. Determination of the Applicable Input Norms for the Exported Products:
The Handbook provided multiple sets of inputs for each exported product. For example, amoxycillin trihydrate had different inputs listed under Entry 41 and Entry 42. The Commissioner determined that the appellant's exports fell under Entry 42, which included Penicillin G as a major input. Since Penicillin G was exempt from duty, the available credit was nil. This determination posed a problem for the appellant, who argued that the norms should be based on the most beneficial option to the exporter.
3. Interpretation of the "Route" in the Norms:
The appellant contended that the reference to the "route" in the norms was unclear and misleading. They argued that the norms should not be applied based on the starting point of manufacture but rather on the option most beneficial to the exporter. The department, however, maintained that the norms were related to the process or technology employed in the manufacture.
4. Application of the Exemption Notification and Selection of Norms:
The Tribunal noted the difficulty in understanding the norms prescribed in the policy and emphasized that the scheme was a fictional one, not related to the actual import content in the export product. The Tribunal concluded that the norms should be determined in favor of the exporter, allowing them to claim the most beneficial set of norms. The Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, had accepted that the norms were designed for the DEEC scheme, allowing exporters to claim any applicable norms.
5. Consideration of the Manufacturing Process and Starting Point of Manufacture:
The Tribunal acknowledged that the manufacturing process of the drugs began with Penicillin G, which was converted into 6-APA or 7-ADCA and then into finished drugs. However, it was possible to manufacture the final drugs without starting from Penicillin G. The Tribunal found that the distinction between Penicillin G route and other routes was difficult to accept and emphasized that the norms should not be based on the technology employed by a particular manufacturer.
6. Application of the Circular Issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade:
The Tribunal considered the circular dated 14-5-1996, which provided that if more than one input was allowed for the manufacture of a product, credit should be allowed for the item with the lowest duty incidence. However, the Tribunal concluded that this provision applied only when multiple alternative inputs were shown for the same export item. In cases where more than one set of inputs was allowed, the exporter could claim credit for one or more of these inputs.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order, and held that the appellant was entitled to claim credit based on the most beneficial set of norms. The Tribunal emphasized that the norms should be applied in favor of the exporter, and the selection of norms should not be based on the technology employed by the manufacturer.
-
1999 (5) TMI 559
Issues:
Penalties imposed on appellants for colluding with manufacturers to avoid duty payment; Violation of principles of natural justice - failure to provide notice of personal hearing to appellants; Allegations of violation of natural justice by not providing clear hearing dates and relied upon documents to certain appellants; Allegations of not receiving notice of hearing by some appellants; Dispute over the adequacy of notice issuance by the Department; Failure to hear appellants before passing orders; Request for setting aside the impugned order and remand for fresh adjudication.
Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi addressed several issues arising from the imposition of penalties on appellants for colluding with manufacturers to evade duty payment. The primary contention raised was the violation of principles of natural justice due to the failure to provide notice of personal hearing to the appellants. It was argued that the Adjudicating authority treated the notice of hearing to the manufacturer as sufficient for the appellants, which was deemed incorrect as each co-noticee is entitled to a separate hearing in their defense before any adjudication order is passed, especially when penalties are involved.
Concerning specific appellants like M/s. Venus Industrial Corp. and M/s. Shivani Locks, it was highlighted that the notice of personal hearing provided ambiguous dates, leading to a violation of natural justice as the requested alternative date was not granted. Similarly, M/s. Kathuria & Sons claimed they did not receive any notice of hearing, thereby hindering their ability to present a defense against proposed penalties. M/s. Karan Steel also faced issues as they received an illegible show cause notice and were not provided with a clear copy or an opportunity for a hearing before the adjudication order was issued.
Moreover, M/s. Duggar Fibres pointed out that essential documents were not furnished along with the show cause notice, impacting their ability to respond adequately. M/s. Jammu Castings alleged that despite not receiving copies of relied upon documents, they were expected to participate in a hearing, thus emphasizing a violation of natural justice. The Department's argument regarding the adequacy of notice issuance was challenged by appellants who claimed non-receipt of hearing notices, leading to a lack of clarity on the actual distribution of notices.
After careful consideration, the Tribunal found merit in the appellants' claims of not receiving proper notice of hearings and the subsequent orders being passed without affording them a hearing. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the cases were remanded for fresh adjudication on the liability of appellants to penalties. The Jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise was tasked with hearing the appellants after providing copies of relied upon documents and ensuring a fair opportunity for them to present their case before passing fresh orders in accordance with the law.
-
1999 (5) TMI 558
The case involved the valuation of steel sheet cuttings sold by the appellants from their factory. The revenue argued for assessing the value based on the imported sheets, but the appellants contended that the sale price of the remnants should be considered. The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, stating that the assessable value should be the sale price as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. The demands for additional duty were deemed unjustified, and the impugned order was set aside.
-
1999 (5) TMI 557
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata overturned the lower authorities' decision to confiscate items of alleged foreign origin from a shop in Calcutta. The tribunal found that erasing marks of origin does not prove smuggling, and the department failed to prove the goods were smuggled. The appeal was allowed, and the confiscation order was set aside.
-
1999 (5) TMI 538
Issues:
Challenge to detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 based on delay in disposing of representation.
Detailed Analysis:
The petition challenges a detention order issued under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detention order was passed against the petitioner on 11-2-1999 by respondent No. 2. The facts leading to this order include the interception of the petitioner on 29-7-1998 at IGI Airport, where foreign and Indian currency amounting to Rs. 17,44,380 was allegedly recovered from him. The petitioner made a statement admitting possession of the currency under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Subsequently, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, and the detention order was issued while he was in custody. The petitioner's representations for revocation of the detention order were rejected by the authorities, leading to the current challenge.
The main submission made on behalf of the petitioner was regarding a representation dated 24-3-1999, which was rejected by the detaining authority after a delay of more than a month. It was argued that this delay in disposing of the representation rendered the detention order liable to be quashed. Legal precedents such as Mohd. Abdullahi Yusuf v. Union of India and Shakil Ahmed Ansari v. Union of India were cited in support of this argument. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 acknowledged the delay in considering the representation but contended that since no new facts were presented in the second representation, the delay was inconsequential. Legal authorities like Smt. Asha Keshavrao Bhosale v. Union of India and Jamal Haji Jakaria v. Union of India were relied upon to support this argument.
The representations dated 18-2-1999 and 24-3-1999 were compared, revealing that the grounds for seeking revocation of the detention order in the latter were not substantially different from the former. The detaining authority's rejection of the second representation was based on the lack of new facts presented. The judgment cited previous legal cases such as Smt. Asha Keshavrao Bhosale's case to emphasize that delay in disposing of a representation may not be significant if no new and relevant facts are introduced. The decision in Jamal Haji Jakaria's case was also referenced to support the contention that successive representations based on the same grounds may not require formal disposal if no new information is provided.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, holding that the delay in disposing of the representation dated 24-3-1999, which did not introduce any new grounds, could not be a valid basis for quashing the detention order. The judgment emphasized the importance of presenting new and relevant facts in subsequent representations to warrant reconsideration by the detaining authority.
-
1999 (5) TMI 537
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the criminal complaint and proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Jurisdiction of the Special Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur, to entertain the complaint under Section 113(2) of the Companies Act, 1956.
3. Applicability of the Supreme Court judgment in Hanuman Prasad Gupta v. Hiralal.
4. Whether the offence under Section 113(2) of the Companies Act is a continuing offence.
5. Whether the complaint is time-barred.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Quashing of the Criminal Complaint and Proceedings:
The petitioners sought to quash the criminal complaint and proceedings pending in the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Rajasthan, Jaipur, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioners argued that the share certificates and the refund of the balance amount were sent by registered post, and the non-receipt was due to a lapse by the Post and Telegraph Department. They contended that no offence under Section 113(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, was made out and that allowing the proceedings would amount to abuse of the court's process.
2. Jurisdiction of the Special Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur:
The petitioners argued that only the courts in Mumbai had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the registered office of the company was situated in Mumbai. They cited the Supreme Court judgment in Hanuman Prasad Gupta v. Hiralal, which dealt with the payment of dividends under Section 207 of the Companies Act. However, the court distinguished this case from Hanuman Prasad Gupta, noting that Section 113 of the Companies Act deals with the delivery of share certificates, which is different from the provisions of Section 207.
3. Applicability of the Supreme Court Judgment in Hanuman Prasad Gupta v. Hiralal:
The court observed that the judgment in Hanuman Prasad Gupta v. Hiralal was not applicable in the present case because the provisions of Sections 113 and 207 of the Companies Act are different. Section 113 casts an obligation on the company to deliver share certificates within three months of allotment, whereas Section 207 deals with the payment of dividends.
4. Whether the Offence under Section 113(2) of the Companies Act is a Continuing Offence:
The respondent argued that the offence under Section 113 is a continuing offence, and therefore, the complaint is not time-barred. The court referred to previous judgments, including Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Smt. Indra Kala and Herdilia Unimers Ltd. v. Smt. Renu Jain, which held that the offence under Section 113(2) is a continuing offence and thus not barred by limitation.
5. Whether the Complaint is Time-Barred:
The court held that the complaint was not time-barred as the offence under Section 113(2) is a continuing offence. The court cited the judgment in Herdilia Unimers Ltd. v. Smt. Renu Jain, which stated that the default under Section 113(1) is a continuing offence, and therefore, the complaint cannot be considered time-barred.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Special Judicial Magistrate at Jaipur had territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under Section 113(2) against the petitioners. The court emphasized that whether cognizance against the petitioners can be taken or not is a matter to be decided by the trial court. The court also noted that the offence under Section 113(2) is a continuing offence, and thus the complaint is not time-barred. Consequently, the petition to quash the complaint and proceedings was dismissed.
........
|
9911796707
